Egypt: Archaeology and Chronology

The reason I have largely ignored your messages is because they evade the content of my messages, like the posts showing O.T. word study evidencing Jerusalem IS referred to as Kadesh in the Bible. Libya is a nation in very close proximity to Egypt. For Egyptian armies to have Libyans in their ranks is nothing out of the ordinary.The evidence says Thutmose III had Libyans in his army. What evidence do you have in the contrary ?Brian, like all minimalists, simply assumes the Bible is not evidence. WHEN this assumption is argued and employed THEN, in response, I think it is fair to point out that the assumption = worldview bias.Velikovsky assumed all sources were true. Brian does the same except he excludes the Bible. When we assume all is true THEN and only THEN does the histories of the nations of Near East fall into place. But Brian and such do not want the Bible seen as credible lest their personal religious bias is invalidated, because the more the Bible is proven true = the more the Deity is substantiated = the more atheist worldview is discredited.The physical evidence found at Karnak (posted in the previous messages) has NEVER been refuted. Brian and all minis know this. This is why they MUST argue the man and ad hom Velikovsky = inability to refute. Darwinists CLAIM to to be loyal to physical evidence, yet we see none them accepting Karnak because to do so would validate a major Biblical claim and we know Darwinists are not in the business of doing that.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 03-22-2006 10:32 AM

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/new_kingdom.html#spoil

Ray,Who were the pharaoh's during David's reign?Brian.

but no its not, do the jews call it kadesh now?, have they ever flat out said kadesh = jerusalam? all of your examples are conjecture ray, one calls mount zion kadesh which would make it holy but its not used as a name but a discription. You have no basis for this other than a want for it to be true. jerusalam has always been called jerusalam. i guess if i tell you that you are misstaken then i guess that is "evading"
the hewbrews have always called it jerusalam after they took it from the caanites then you have no clue about the eyptians then, they would never let mercenarys into thier armies what evidence? i don't think its worldview bias, its taking the bible with a grain of salt, being that there is a lot of bias in the bible. of course we could do that ray, but thats only one option, when there could be two or more, the others being the bible is totally wrong, or the writers combined some events to produce a great foe.
and no they don't fall into place, other documents contradict the account in the bible, why doesn't the bible have any egyptians after the exodus, we know well that their where lots in palastine at that time.
Velkovsky didn't know what he was talking about, he thought venus was a comet and the locus were brought by it, most of his arguments are conjecture based on shifting what people knew back then. One of his thuthmose answers is to claim shishak was based off a personal name, but how in the world would the hewbrews know that or call him that? hey ray, pot meet kettle, you do not show very good conduct when you claim they attack your source and then attack them. the karnak evidence doesn't really show much other than they had stuff, if there is nothing to say this stuff is from jerusalam then there could be other answers, i'd like to see what is really written on it not some small picture of iti stand by my theory that they combined two kings though, it was pretty common

You have the wrong Sharuhen event.Brian.

Hi ray,Gonna be busy up until next Saturday, but will have time to pick out one or two things before then.First off: What leader would that be?Keep in mind that Rehoboam was the King of Judah with his capital at Jerusalem.At this time Megiddo was in Israel, whose capital was Shechem.So, what leader escaped to what capital?ThanksBrian.

I looked up all those OT scriptures again, all i can say is its just conjecture, yes they refered to jerusalam as holy, but they never called it kadesh, none of the scriptures you posted ever call jersusalam kadesh and not jersusalm.
So saying jersusalam is kadesh is nonsense since the useage of kadesh in the text is a discriptor and not a proper name
half of them do not even talk about jersusalam ray!you just basically mine-quoted the OT, how can you say that kadesh=jersualam

Ray,Who were the pharaohs during David's reign?

This is your problem: even if the evidence supports the claim - you deny.We have ample passages calling Jerusalem: Kadesh, which means "Holy". Even the Arabic name for Jerusalem "El-Kuds" means "Holy City". The reason why it is called as such is because the Holy Place and Holy of Holies is in the Temple.If you are going to ignore evidence while admitting kadesh is in the same verses referring to Jerusalem, then, this is why your worldview alone refutes everything you say about the Bible. I suggest you learn something about whats called objectivity.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 03-24-2006 05:53 PM

After today I will disappear until my paper refuting evolution is finished. I have been in the hospital with a viral syndrome. I am finally healthy enough to devote full time until project is complete. Actually I have changed my view. Velikovsky says it was Rehoboam, but other scholars (Danelius) have pointed out that this is untenable since Rehoboam would not be in Israel helping the person (Jeroboam) who rent most of his kingdom from him. I agree with Danelius.The issue is unresolved due to conflicting data.Pharoah during David's reign = Thutmose II. Hatshepsut was the Queen of Sheba who visited Solomon in Retenu/God's land, and Thutmose III was contemporary with Rehoboam.Also, I never have told you who the Pharoah of the Exodus was: Adikam. He was preceded by Pepi II.What is Passover? - Jewish HolidaysI would be very interested in what you think about this.Brian:We know Solomon's gold altar is engraved at Karnak. This is a fact. Conflicting details cannot erase this fact despite wherever they come from (Egypt or Bible).The only reason you guys cannot accept the fact above is because to do so would be an admission that you all were wrong. The physical evidence at Karnak has been matched with its description in the O.T.
Evolutionists base mammoth claims of human evolution on teeth and skull scraps, yet this is infinetly more of substance and tantamount to a junior high IQ exercise.http://www.hshideaway.com/chap15.htm#topAges in ChaosAges in ChaosRay

your interprtation of the passages and usages of the words are wrong, i don't deny the evidence, the evidence doesn't point to your conclusion ray, you can't use "el-kuds" it is a modern name for jerusalam that has nothing to do with this. do you have any passages that directly call jersusalam kadash, i mean a proper name. Not some passages that use holy as a discriptor for how religiously important the city is if you believe this, then you misunderstood me, all your evidence is indirect, and your useage of holy doesn't work quite the way you want it to. The useage of kadesh when used in refrence to jerusalam is never used in place of jerusalam, show me one passage where anyone does this,most of the lines say "jerusalam, the holy city" or something like that.i've been saying the same thing since you brought it up, no one has ever called jerusalam kadesh and not jerusalam, its always been named jerusalam ever since the hebrews took it from the caaniteskadesh is never used in place as the name of jerusalam as a city name, which seems to be the only basis for this is indirect scripture mininghow about you look to your own self about objectivity ray, all of your evidence and arguement is conjecture

Hi Ray,Glad to know you are feeling better. There has to be other pharaohs Ray as David's reign was 40 years. Thutmosis II only reigned for 12 or 13 years (the first year MAY have been a co-regency)so who were the other Pharaohs? I think common sense dictates that the claim that Rehoboam was at Megiddo is just nonsense, I am surprised Gene Scott entertained this for a second.Now, since Velikovsky is demonstrably incorrect about Rehoboam fighting at Megiddo, do you accept that he could also be wrong about other things? What issue is unresolved? I'll post more on this during the week because it is a chronological disaster. Ray this gets more ridiculous with every post!Pepi II reigned nearly 1300 years before Solomon, so it makes a mockery of 1 Kings 6:1.The Ipuwer papyrus sure has initiated a lot of conspiracy theories.Any Egyptian sources to support the existence of Pharaoh Adikiam? Remember that Jewish legends are not categorised as an Egyptian source. Simply more inane Velikovskian drivel.Brian

hey brian, what do you think of my idea? that rather than being based on one person shishak is based on two people?
i've read about many heroes and villians that are combonations of more than one person
like king arthur,merlin,a few of the greek heroes
some celtic heroes are based off real people that got combinedbram stokers dracula is based off two people, vlad tepist and ann bethony
of course people might state that the bible isn't fiction, but it is a literary work

Hi Rev, Anything is possible, but there really is no need to posit this at all.There are more extant evidential artifacts for Thutmosis III that for any other pharaoh, his life story is pretty sound.The Shishak of the Bible is limited to a few scant references in I Kings and II Chronicles, with Chronicles basically being a rewrite of Kings.The only thing that the mention of Shishak's making off with the Temple treasures does is to suggest that Jerusalem is one of the locations mentioned on the missing section of Shishak's inscriptions at Karnak. As far as historical enquiry goes, this doesn't mean that Shishak actually did make off with the Temple treasures, but it does suggest that it is likely.But, there is no need to think about an amalgamation of more than one person. It is quite clear that Shishak was Shesonq and it fits in perfectly with all of the other evidence.The Velikovsky chronology is a total mess, he didn't appear to understand that moving the Egyptian chronology forward 500 years would have an immense affect on the rest of near eastern history.Brian.

good point, i don't understand why ray uses Velikovsky anyway, he doesn't have any training as any of the sciences that he made explainations for.
its too bad scientists freaked out over the crazy stuff Velikovsky came up with or he would have been forgotten